At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

You already have a thread on this, which failed miserably in addressing anything regarding a flat earth. Any hard evidence presented to you was quickly dismissed as being faked, with no explanation or proof from you of it being faked.

As far as you're concerned, nothing in reality exists, it's all faked due to some conspiracy theory you have cooked up in your head.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

You already have a thread on this, which failed miserably in addressing anything regarding a flat earth. Any hard evidence presented to you was quickly dismissed as being faked, with no explanation or proof from you of it being faked.

As far as you're concerned, nothing in reality exists, it's all faked due to some conspiracy theory you have cooked up in your head.

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

You already have a thread on this, which failed miserably in addressing anything regarding a flat earth. Any hard evidence presented to you was quickly dismissed as being faked, with no explanation or proof from you of it being faked.

As far as you're concerned, nothing in reality exists, it's all faked due to some conspiracy theory you have cooked up in your head.

one example of this "hard evidence"old man, it seems like you are obsessed with balls or something, or stalking me.

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

You already have a thread on this, which failed miserably in addressing anything regarding a flat earth. Any hard evidence presented to you was quickly dismissed as being faked, with no explanation or proof from you of it being faked.

As far as you're concerned, nothing in reality exists, it's all faked due to some conspiracy theory you have cooked up in your head.

Or maybe he's just having some fun?

oh it's fun, but that's not the point of this post, I am trying to talk some sense into globalists.

At 8/19/2016 3:43:18 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:they've convinced you all that you are monkeys on a spinning ball, and you parade this bs around as if you're geniuses.

You like being different. ?From flat earth , to 200 years old , to ( they've ) convinced you.Your age of earth 200 , sounds like a number you have to have , for death.Don't get me wrong , I do like it . ButYou got to many things , Big things , that you don't agree with.This makes it less believable.Conspiracy.( They ) don't want us to know the earth is flat .Who would they be.

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What tests have you performed in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is flat?

Good question, I bought a Nikon p900 recently, and have been photographing sites at distances that should not be visible. Getting these results compiled and organized now to share, but I have found several of these instances on the interwebs. Have you or anyone performed tests in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is a globe? Realize that I'm not here to be difficult or different, my everyday observations tell me I'm not moving right now, and the ground I stand on seems pretty flat, so I believe the burden of proof should rest on those who make a claim against my common senses, and this burden has not been met.

At 8/19/2016 3:43:18 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:they've convinced you all that you are monkeys on a spinning ball, and you parade this bs around as if you're geniuses.

You like being different. ?

No, it is difficult to talk about the flat earth, that is on my mind endlessly. As a successful business owner, the ridicule associated with being a flat earther makes ice breakers oddly uncomfortable and impossible.

From flat earth , to 200 years old , to ( they've ) convinced you.

Never said the age of the earth is 200 years old, I cannot claim exactly how old it is. If I had a time machine maybe...

Your age of earth 200 , sounds like a number you have to have , for death.Don't get me wrong , I do like it . ButYou got to many things , Big things , that you don't agree with.This makes it less believable.Conspiracy.( They ) don't want us to know the earth is flat .Who would they be.

The rulers of this plane. The manipulators of the mind. The Nephilim and their master.

At 8/19/2016 3:43:18 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:they've convinced you all that you are monkeys on a spinning ball, and you parade this bs around as if you're geniuses.

You like being different. ?

No, it is difficult to talk about the flat earth, that is on my mind endlessly. As a successful business owner, the ridicule associated with being a flat earther makes ice breakers oddly uncomfortable and impossible.

From flat earth , to 200 years old , to ( they've ) convinced you.

Never said the age of the earth is 200 years old, I cannot claim exactly how old it is. If I had a time machine maybe...

Your age of earth 200 , sounds like a number you have to have , for death.Don't get me wrong , I do like it . ButYou got to many things , Big things , that you don't agree with.This makes it less believable.Conspiracy.( They ) don't want us to know the earth is flat .Who would they be.

The rulers of this plane. The manipulators of the mind. The Nephilim and their master.

What's on the other side of the plane. ?I bet if you wanted to guess how thick it is , you would look up biggest hole dug. And whatever the deepest hole , cut , or drilled . Then add 100 foot.

At 8/19/2016 3:43:18 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:they've convinced you all that you are monkeys on a spinning ball, and you parade this bs around as if you're geniuses.

You like being different. ?

No, it is difficult to talk about the flat earth, that is on my mind endlessly. As a successful business owner, the ridicule associated with being a flat earther makes ice breakers oddly uncomfortable and impossible.

From flat earth , to 200 years old , to ( they've ) convinced you.

Never said the age of the earth is 200 years old, I cannot claim exactly how old it is. If I had a time machine maybe...

Your age of earth 200 , sounds like a number you have to have , for death.Don't get me wrong , I do like it . ButYou got to many things , Big things , that you don't agree with.This makes it less believable.Conspiracy.( They ) don't want us to know the earth is flat .Who would they be.

The rulers of this plane. The manipulators of the mind. The Nephilim and their master.

What's on the other side of the plane. ?

This question is obviously unanswerable, the deepest we've ever drilled is 7 miles, which begs the question in return, how does modern science know what at the core of the "ball"?

I bet if you wanted to guess how thick it is , you would look up biggest hole dug. And whatever the deepest hole , cut , or drilled . Then add 100 foot.

At 8/19/2016 3:43:18 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:they've convinced you all that you are monkeys on a spinning ball, and you parade this bs around as if you're geniuses.

You like being different. ?

No, it is difficult to talk about the flat earth, that is on my mind endlessly. As a successful business owner, the ridicule associated with being a flat earther makes ice breakers oddly uncomfortable and impossible.

From flat earth , to 200 years old , to ( they've ) convinced you.

Never said the age of the earth is 200 years old, I cannot claim exactly how old it is. If I had a time machine maybe...

Your age of earth 200 , sounds like a number you have to have , for death.Don't get me wrong , I do like it . ButYou got to many things , Big things , that you don't agree with.This makes it less believable.Conspiracy.( They ) don't want us to know the earth is flat .Who would they be.

The rulers of this plane. The manipulators of the mind. The Nephilim and their master.

At 8/19/2016 3:43:18 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:they've convinced you all that you are monkeys on a spinning ball, and you parade this bs around as if you're geniuses.

You like being different. ?

No, it is difficult to talk about the flat earth, that is on my mind endlessly. As a successful business owner, the ridicule associated with being a flat earther makes ice breakers oddly uncomfortable and impossible.

From flat earth , to 200 years old , to ( they've ) convinced you.

Never said the age of the earth is 200 years old, I cannot claim exactly how old it is. If I had a time machine maybe...

Your age of earth 200 , sounds like a number you have to have , for death.Don't get me wrong , I do like it . ButYou got to many things , Big things , that you don't agree with.This makes it less believable.Conspiracy.( They ) don't want us to know the earth is flat .Who would they be.

The rulers of this plane. The manipulators of the mind. The Nephilim and their master.

What's on the other side of the plane. ?

Nothing, silly. Anything on the bottom side would fall off.

indeed this is true for a plane and a globe, gravity is the lie that holds the ball together, though it's never been proven to exist.

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What tests have you performed in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is flat?

Good question, I bought a Nikon p900 recently, and have been photographing sites at distances that should not be visible. Getting these results compiled and organized now to share, but I have found several of these instances on the interwebs.

I'm interested to see the methodology, results, and the specific hypothesis that is being tested. So, according to the Flat Earth theory, is there a determined maximum visible distance which this test could falsify?

Have you or anyone performed tests in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is a globe?

I'm sure people have, but since this thread is about the Flat Earth theory, that's all that should be addressed. There should be no reliance on negative evidence for competing theories. That's a separate issue.

Realize that I'm not here to be difficult or different, my everyday observations tell me I'm not moving right now,...

That seems pretty irrelevant. If one is moving at a constant speed in relation to all other entities, then said motion would be undetectable. For example, if you were in the trailer of a truck that was moving at a constant speed over an ideal surface, then you, the truck, the trailer, and the air within the trailer would all be moving at the same velocity in accordance to the same constant forces. You would be entirely unable to discern any movement from within this environment. (http://physics.ucr.edu...)

...and the ground I stand on seems pretty flat,...

How does that imply anything? If the Earth was round and large enough, why would you think the roundness would be casually observable? If you were standing on a large sphere, then the horizon and everywhere around you would appear to be flat, anyway. To illustrate, let me walk you though an explanation since I can't show images, here.

Imagine a large sphere and a man standing on the north pole (which is arbitrarily defined). Cut a section through the center of the sphere aligned with the man. This will arbitrarily be defined as "front/back". Looking at this section, if you were to draw a line from the man to represent visibility, there will be a symmetrical point in either direction which the surface will no longer be visible to him. These points indicate the "front/back" visible horizon. Now, cut a section perpendicular to that ("left/right") and you will see exactly the same thing. Repeat this for as many angles as you wish, and then plot out these "horizon points" on the surface of the sphere. They will form a perfect circle around the man, and from his perspective, the surface he is standing on has a perfectly level horizon encircling him and the ground appears to be perfectly flat.

...so I believe the burden of proof should rest on those who make a claim against my common senses, and this burden has not been met.

For the record, common sense is a terrible standard as a benchmark for a standard of reasoning. Human intuition is not well suited for discerning the truths of the world, which is why we require structured methods of investigation (e.g. science, logic) that remove as much as the human element from the process as possible. Relying on an argument or claim's accordance with "common sense" is often regarded as a logical fallacy (https://corkskeptics.org...). As such, you are still responsible for demonstrating that your claim is factually true and, thus, still bear the Burden of Proof.

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What causes it to be winter in the "southern hemisphere" while it is summer in the "norther hemisphere?" (Put into quotes since those terms don't make sense on a plane.)

Another good question, in my model, the sun circles around overhead. In the solstices, the sun moves to an inner, tighter circle around the pole, and to the outer circle when it is summer in the southern hemiplane. The information is on the Gleasons map of the world that the U.N. uses as it's flag and symbol, and is the only map used by the USGS.https://fedora.digitalcommonwealth.org...

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What causes it to be winter in the "southern hemisphere" while it is summer in the "norther hemisphere?" (Put into quotes since those terms don't make sense on a plane.)

Another good question, in my model, the sun circles around overhead. In the solstices, the sun moves to an inner, tighter circle around the pole, and to the outer circle when it is summer in the southern hemiplane. The information is on the Gleasons map of the world that the U.N. uses as it's flag and symbol, and is the only map used by the USGS.https://fedora.digitalcommonwealth.org...

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What causes it to be winter in the "southern hemisphere" while it is summer in the "norther hemisphere?" (Put into quotes since those terms don't make sense on a plane.)

Another good question, in my model, the sun circles around overhead. In the solstices, the sun moves to an inner, tighter circle around the pole, and to the outer circle when it is summer in the southern hemiplane. The information is on the Gleasons map of the world that the U.N. uses as it's flag and symbol, and is the only map used by the USGS.https://fedora.digitalcommonwealth.org...

The link you provided that you claim is THE map of the world and what it looks like if a person were to look at it shows all the countries and so if human beings were to build a spaceship and go into outer space they should see a "disc" like structure floating around in "space" where you can see all the countries on that "disc".

Human beings did make a spaceship and go into outerspace and looked back down at the earth and they didn't see that, at all. They saw a big a$$ continent called Africa and some Saudi Arabia: source: http://www.nasa.gov...

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What tests have you performed in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is flat?

Good question, I bought a Nikon p900 recently, and have been photographing sites at distances that should not be visible. Getting these results compiled and organized now to share, but I have found several of these instances on the interwebs.

I'm interested to see the methodology, results, and the specific hypothesis that is being tested. So, according to the Flat Earth theory, is there a determined maximum visible distance which this test could falsify?

Chicago is seen from Michigan everyday, not possible on a globe that is 25,000 miles in circumference.http://www.abc57.com...

There are a few more but the most notable that I have yet to confirm was a blast in Tunguska in 1908 which was reportedly seen instantaneously in london.

a few more examples are on the tip of the tongue now.

Have you or anyone performed tests in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is a globe?

I'm sure people have, but since this thread is about the Flat Earth theory, that's all that should be addressed. There should be no reliance on negative evidence for competing theories. That's a separate issue.

The flat earth theory is based partly on the fact that there is no curvature anywhere to be seen, this is conclusive. So they are hardly seperate.

Realize that I'm not here to be difficult or different, my everyday observations tell me I'm not moving right now,...

That seems pretty irrelevant. If one is moving at a constant speed in relation to all other entities, then said motion would be undetectable. For example, if you were in the trailer of a truck that was moving at a constant speed over an ideal surface, then you, the truck, the trailer, and the air within the trailer would all be moving at the same velocity in accordance to the same constant forces. You would be entirely unable to discern any movement from within this environment.

That's what they say, but a ball, spinning faster than the speed of sound would exhibit great centrifugal force, so the linear motion of a truck on a flat road is irrelevant, not to mention if you were in a drop top, the circumstances are different. this is like the analogy my duma $$$ science teacher gave when explaining how water sticks to the bottom of a spinning ball when he swung a bucket round his head. Entirely different circumstances.

How does that imply anything? If the Earth was round and large enough, why would you think the roundness would be casually observable? If you were standing on a large sphere, then the horizon and everywhere around you would appear to be flat, anyway. To illustrate, let me walk you though an explanation since I can't show images, here.

Imagine a large sphere and a man standing on the north pole (which is arbitrarily defined). Cut a section through the center of the sphere aligned with the man. This will arbitrarily be defined as "front/back". Looking at this section, if you were to draw a line from the man to represent visibility, there will be a symmetrical point in either direction which the surface will no longer be visible to him. These points indicate the "front/back" visible horizon. Now, cut a section perpendicular to that ("left/right") and you will see exactly the same thing. Repeat this for as many angles as you wish, and then plot out these "horizon points" on the surface of the sphere. They will form a perfect circle around the man, and from his perspective, the surface he is standing on has a perfectly level horizon encircling him and the ground appears to be perfectly flat.

but if he were to rise in altitude, he would see a falling, ever curving horizon.

...so I believe the burden of proof should rest on those who make a claim against my common senses, and this burden has not been met.

For the record, common sense is a terrible standard as a benchmark for a standard of reasoning. Human intuition is not well suited for discerning the truths of the world, which is why we require structured methods of investigation (e.g. science, logic) that remove as much as the human element from the process as possible. Relying on an argument or claim's accordance with "common sense" is often regarded as a logical fallacy (https://corkskeptics.org...). As such, you are still responsible for demonstrating that your claim is factually true and, thus, still bear the Burden of Proof.

Science like water has never been found to curve around a spinning ball? The natural physics of water shows that it falls flat every time. This is demonstratabe, and repeatable. I'm not obliged to prove to you anything. Please state your questions in the form of a... question.

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What causes it to be winter in the "southern hemisphere" while it is summer in the "norther hemisphere?" (Put into quotes since those terms don't make sense on a plane.)

Another good question, in my model, the sun circles around overhead. In the solstices, the sun moves to an inner, tighter circle around the pole, and to the outer circle when it is summer in the southern hemiplane. The information is on the Gleasons map of the world that the U.N. uses as it's flag and symbol, and is the only map used by the USGS.https://fedora.digitalcommonwealth.org...

What force causes the sun to move like this?

That is a question I don't have an answer to, probably electromagnetic levitation. but I'm still researching it.

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What tests have you performed in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is flat?

Good question, I bought a Nikon p900 recently, and have been photographing sites at distances that should not be visible. Getting these results compiled and organized now to share, but I have found several of these instances on the interwebs.

I'm interested to see the methodology, results, and the specific hypothesis that is being tested. So, according to the Flat Earth theory, is there a determined maximum visible distance which this test could falsify?

Chicago is seen from Michigan everyday, not possible on a globe that is 25,000 miles in circumference.http://www.abc57.com...

There are a few more but the most notable that I have yet to confirm was a blast in Tunguska in 1908 which was reportedly seen instantaneously in london.

a few more examples are on the tip of the tongue now.

Are all of these examples occasional and ever open water? There's an explanation regarding the bending of light in the first link you provided. I assume that you reject this and if you do, why?

Have you or anyone performed tests in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is a globe?

I'm sure people have, but since this thread is about the Flat Earth theory, that's all that should be addressed. There should be no reliance on negative evidence for competing theories. That's a separate issue.

The flat earth theory is based partly on the fact that there is no curvature anywhere to be seen, this is conclusive. So they are hardly seperate.

Fair enough, but what makes it conclusive? Falsifiability is key, so what test could be performed in order to verify that the apparent lack of curvature is actual?

Realize that I'm not here to be difficult or different, my everyday observations tell me I'm not moving right now,...

That seems pretty irrelevant. If one is moving at a constant speed in relation to all other entities, then said motion would be undetectable. For example, if you were in the trailer of a truck that was moving at a constant speed over an ideal surface, then you, the truck, the trailer, and the air within the trailer would all be moving at the same velocity in accordance to the same constant forces. You would be entirely unable to discern any movement from within this environment.

That's what they say, but a ball, spinning faster than the speed of sound would exhibit great centrifugal force, so the linear motion of a truck on a flat road is irrelevant, not to mention if you were in a drop top, the circumstances are different. this is like the analogy my duma $$$ science teacher gave when explaining how water sticks to the bottom of a spinning ball when he swung a bucket round his head. Entirely different circumstances.

I assume you deny gravity, then? If so, what force is actively 'pushing' objects towards the ground?

How does that imply anything? If the Earth was round and large enough, why would you think the roundness would be casually observable? If you were standing on a large sphere, then the horizon and everywhere around you would appear to be flat, anyway. To illustrate, let me walk you though an explanation since I can't show images, here.

Imagine a large sphere and a man standing on the north pole (which is arbitrarily defined). Cut a section through the center of the sphere aligned with the man. This will arbitrarily be defined as "front/back". Looking at this section, if you were to draw a line from the man to represent visibility, there will be a symmetrical point in either direction which the surface will no longer be visible to him. These points indicate the "front/back" visible horizon. Now, cut a section perpendicular to that ("left/right") and you will see exactly the same thing. Repeat this for as many angles as you wish, and then plot out these "horizon points" on the surface of the sphere. They will form a perfect circle around the man, and from his perspective, the surface he is standing on has a perfectly level horizon encircling him and the ground appears to be perfectly flat.

but if he were to rise in altitude, he would see a falling, ever curving horizon.

Only if that altitude was sufficient to see most of the sphere. From any point on land, even on mountaintop, it would still look flat.

...so I believe the burden of proof should rest on those who make a claim against my common senses, and this burden has not been met.

For the record, common sense is a terrible standard as a benchmark for a standard of reasoning. Human intuition is not well suited for discerning the truths of the world, which is why we require structured methods of investigation (e.g. science, logic) that remove as much as the human element from the process as possible. Relying on an argument or claim's accordance with "common sense" is often regarded as a logical fallacy (https://corkskeptics.org...). As such, you are still responsible for demonstrating that your claim is factually true and, thus, still bear the Burden of Proof.

Science like water has never been found to curve around a spinning ball? The natural physics of water shows that it falls flat every time. This is demonstratabe, and repeatable.

You're assuming your conclusion, though. If the Earth is indeed round, then yes, water would curve in accordance to gravitational forces from a significantly massive body.

I'm not obliged to prove to you anything. Please state your questions in the form of a... question.

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What tests have you performed in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is flat?

Good question, I bought a Nikon p900 recently, and have been photographing sites at distances that should not be visible. Getting these results compiled and organized now to share, but I have found several of these instances on the interwebs. Have you or anyone performed tests in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is a globe? Realize that I'm not here to be difficult or different, my everyday observations tell me I'm not moving right now, and the ground I stand on seems pretty flat, so I believe the burden of proof should rest on those who make a claim against my common senses, and this burden has not been met.

Go find and pick a mountain that sticks out of the earth that you can observe from miles and miles away clearly, and keep walking away from that mountain. No matter how far you walk away from that mountain you should still be able to see the entire mountain from top to bottom regardless of how far away from it you are, if the earth is flat.

Like what this muslim guy named "Al Biruni", who is considered the father of geodesy, experimented with in present day "pakistan/afghanistan" over 1000+ years ago. He took it further, made Aristotle and Ptolemy look like idiots, proving them wrong about celestial bodies, gathered data on the moon that scientists kept relying upon even 800+ years after his death and he figured out the radius and circumference of the earth while your ancestors were living in their own feces thinking the earth was flat back in Europe.source: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Quite a simple little experiment, especially now that you have your little fancy shmancy Nikon camera lol.Here is a diagram: https://en.wikipedia.org...

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

How do you explain how the sun sets at different times depending on the time zone you are in, if the Earth is flat?

The sun is not 93,000,000 miles away, nor is it ridiculously massive. It sheds it's light locally, on about half of the plane at a time moving around the north pole, in a circular path.

Where is the edge of the flat Earth, and what is on the other side?

Who's to say there is an edge? The "edge as we know it, or the furthest point we can access currently is far from the shores Antarctica. The Antarctic treaty prevents anyone from freely exploring it. So, again this part of the flat earth theory can only be speculated on. But there is a Buddhist map from 1,000 AD that shows much more land, as well as admiral Byrds account of "a land roughly the size of north America BEYOND the south pole, that no man has ever visited that is full of resources"Antarctica is not a continent, it is the crust on the pizza planet so to speak.

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What causes it to be winter in the "southern hemisphere" while it is summer in the "norther hemisphere?" (Put into quotes since those terms don't make sense on a plane.)

Another good question, in my model, the sun circles around overhead. In the solstices, the sun moves to an inner, tighter circle around the pole, and to the outer circle when it is summer in the southern hemiplane. The information is on the Gleasons map of the world that the U.N. uses as it's flag and symbol, and is the only map used by the USGS.https://fedora.digitalcommonwealth.org...

The link you provided that you claim is THE map of the world and what it looks like if a person were to look at it shows all the countries and so if human beings were to build a spaceship and go into outer space they should see a "disc" like structure floating around in "space" where you can see all the countries on that "disc".

There is no space.

Human beings did make a spaceship and go into outerspace and looked back down at the earth and they didn't see that, at all. They saw a big a$$ continent called Africa and some Saudi Arabia: source: http://www.nasa.gov...

no, they didn't they've been faking it all along. You really think that is a picture of earth? You know what I see? First a lack of any stars, secondly some proof of Photoshop cgi You know they CREATED both sides right? This "picture"?http://testingtheglobe.com...They TELL you it's Photoshop.https://youtu.be...

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What tests have you performed in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is flat?

Good question, I bought a Nikon p900 recently, and have been photographing sites at distances that should not be visible. Getting these results compiled and organized now to share, but I have found several of these instances on the interwebs.

I'm interested to see the methodology, results, and the specific hypothesis that is being tested. So, according to the Flat Earth theory, is there a determined maximum visible distance which this test could falsify?

Chicago is seen from Michigan everyday, not possible on a globe that is 25,000 miles in circumference.http://www.abc57.com...

There are a few more but the most notable that I have yet to confirm was a blast in Tunguska in 1908 which was reportedly seen instantaneously in london.

a few more examples are on the tip of the tongue now.

Are all of these examples occasional and ever open water?

The last one isnt.

There's an explanation regarding the bending of light in the first link you provided. I assume that you reject this and if you do, why?The weatherman claims it is a superior mirage. Mirages ALWAYS have some inversion, and rarely last long. A time lapse shows this isn't a mirage.https://youtu.be...

Have you or anyone performed tests in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is a globe?

I'm sure people have, but since this thread is about the Flat Earth theory, that's all that should be addressed. There should be no reliance on negative evidence for competing theories. That's a separate issue.

The flat earth theory is based partly on the fact that there is no curvature anywhere to be seen, this is conclusive. So they are hardly seperate.

Fair enough, but what makes it conclusive? Falsifiability is key, so what test could be performed in order to verify that the apparent lack of curvature is actual?

Again, the distances sighted as above. Isn't it a bit too coincidental that light would bend enough to put Chicago at eye level for entire days? (as visibility permits)

Realize that I'm not here to be difficult or different, my everyday observations tell me I'm not moving right now,...

That seems pretty irrelevant. If one is moving at a constant speed in relation to all other entities, then said motion would be undetectable. For example, if you were in the trailer of a truck that was moving at a constant speed over an ideal surface, then you, the truck, the trailer, and the air within the trailer would all be moving at the same velocity in accordance to the same constant forces. You would be entirely unable to discern any movement from within this environment.

That's what they say, but a ball, spinning faster than the speed of sound would exhibit great centrifugal force, so the linear motion of a truck on a flat road is irrelevant, not to mention if you were in a drop top, the circumstances are different. this is like the analogy my duma $$$ science teacher gave when explaining how water sticks to the bottom of a spinning ball when he swung a bucket round his head. Entirely different circumstances.

I assume you deny gravity, then? If so, what force is actively 'pushing' objects towards the ground?

Yes. gravity is the lie holding all the other lies together. Things can be better explained using density and buoyancy. Things have a natural tendency to seek equilibrium based on these two. I won't get to far into the many errors in gravity, so I'll just leave this here.http://www.waykiwayki.com...

How does that imply anything? If the Earth was round and large enough, why would you think the roundness would be casually observable? If you were standing on a large sphere, then the horizon and everywhere around you would appear to be flat, anyway. To illustrate, let me walk you though an explanation since I can't show images, here.

Imagine a large sphere and a man standing on the north pole (which is arbitrarily defined). Cut a section through the center of the sphere aligned with the man. This will arbitrarily be defined as "front/back". Looking at this section, if you were to draw a line from the man to represent visibility, there will be a symmetrical point in either direction which the surface will no longer be visible to him. These points indicate the "front/back" visible horizon. Now, cut a section perpendicular to that ("left/right") and you will see exactly the same thing. Repeat this for as many angles as you wish, and then plot out these "horizon points" on the surface of the sphere. They will form a perfect circle around the man, and from his perspective, the surface he is standing on has a perfectly level horizon encircling him and the ground appears to be perfectly flat.

but if he were to rise in altitude, he would see a falling, ever curving horizon.

Only if that altitude was sufficient to see most of the sphere. From any point on land, even on mountaintop, it would still look flat.

...so I believe the burden of proof should rest on those who make a claim against my common senses, and this burden has not been met.

For the record, common sense is a terrible standard as a benchmark for a standard of reasoning. Human intuition is not well suited for discerning the truths of the world, which is why we require structured methods of investigation (e.g. science, logic) that remove as much as the human element from the process as possible. Relying on an argument or claim's accordance with "common sense" is often regarded as a logical fallacy (https://corkskeptics.org...). As such, you are still responsible for demonstrating that your claim is factually true and, thus, still bear the Burden of Proof.

Science like water has never been found to curve around a spinning ball? The natural physics of water shows that it falls flat every time. This is demonstratabe, and repeatable.

You're assuming your conclusion, though. If the Earth is indeed round, then yes, water would curve in accordance to gravitational forces from a significantly massive body.

So where is this curved water? Aren't globeheads "assuming the conclusion"?

I'm not obliged to prove to you anything. Please state your questions in the form of a... question.

At 8/19/2016 3:59:45 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:Taking all questions regarding the flat earth. Addressing any points anyone has for a spherical earth.

What tests have you performed in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is flat?

Good question, I bought a Nikon p900 recently, and have been photographing sites at distances that should not be visible. Getting these results compiled and organized now to share, but I have found several of these instances on the interwebs. Have you or anyone performed tests in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the Earth is a globe? Realize that I'm not here to be difficult or different, my everyday observations tell me I'm not moving right now, and the ground I stand on seems pretty flat, so I believe the burden of proof should rest on those who make a claim against my common senses, and this burden has not been met.

Go find and pick a mountain that sticks out of the earth that you can observe from miles and miles away clearly, and keep walking away from that mountain. No matter how far you walk away from that mountain you should still be able to see the entire mountain from top to bottom regardless of how far away from it you are, if the earth is flat.

That would be true if there were no such things as limited visibility due to atmosphere, which you can look at any weather app and see, and the law of perspective which causes things to shrink and vanish with distance. Have you not learned about the railroad tracks and telephone poles in school?

Like what this muslim guy named "Al Biruni", who is considered the father of geodesy, experimented with in present day "pakistan/afghanistan" over 1000+ years ago. He took it further, made Aristotle and Ptolemy look like idiots, proving them wrong about celestial bodies, gathered data on the moon that scientists kept relying upon even 800+ years after his death and he figured out the radius and circumference of the earth while your ancestors were living in their own feces thinking the earth was flat back in Europe.source: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Quite a simple little experiment, especially now that you have your little fancy shmancy Nikon camera lol.Here is a diagram: https://en.wikipedia.org...

You do realize that "Al Biruni said so" is not a question, nor is it a proper rebuttal without corroborating evidence. See how in your "Diagram" (show me a picture!) how one would, if they were on a tall mountain stuck to the side of a ball, how the horizon is below the feet of the observer? You NEVER have to look down at the horizon, it's always flat, and always level, which is inconsistent with the globe model.